"We observe that there exists a broad misconception that the BSD permits the licensing of BSD code and modifications of BSD code under closed source licenses. In this paper we put forward an argument to the effect that the terms of the BSD require BSD code and modifications to BSD code to be licensed under the terms of the BSD license. We look at some possible consequences and observe that this licensing requirement could have serious impacts on the unwary."

"Yes because GPL will eat BSD license. And *BSD people are proud in writing good code without any restrictions. "

GPL license is not some cannibal and your words remind me of Microsoft's FUD.Learn to stick to legal terms when talking about licenses.

"The significant" <- depends on your environment, if you are a desktop-user ... but there it depends too and it's possible. "

No. Significant means the large majority.

"
And therefore most of the best and secure software is from OpenBSD - you'll find it in Windows, Linux, *BSD, Solaris .... Because Theo is fanatic about openness and security.

It is because BSD licensed code can be easily forked off and merged into proprietary systems like Windows. Whether OpenBSD is secure or not has nothing to do with whether GPL'ed components are allowed in the base system.

"Many people call this an operating system."

Precisely. OS is useless without applications and large majority of Free software applications are written under the GPL license. So for usable applications you are quite probably relying on GPL'ed code.

>GPL license is not some cannibal and your words remind me of Microsoft's FUD.Learn to stick to legal terms when talking about licenses.

Call it whatever you want. If you take BSD code and put it under the GPL, you will have GPL-code afterwards. So yes you can tell people about the vast majority of GPL-code - tha's a nice thinking. Call it "viral" instead and if you have problems with the term, think about "free software" and "open source" - it's nonsense too without the proper context!

>Precisely. OS is useless without applications and large majority of Free software applications are written under the GPL license. So for usable applications you are quite probably relying on GPL'ed code.

Yes the majority is GPL software, but from the beginning? And can of course build a usuable system without GPL software - to compile it I have to use GCC. This is no war against GPL software, I'am using it too - but don't spread such a nonsense because of your very own horizon.

"Call it whatever you want. If you take BSD code and put it under the GPL, you will have GPL-code afterward"

So,Name calling is ok. A license can be called a Cannibal for BSD folks I suppose and no you dont have change your BSD code to GPL just because you mingle some GPL code with it. Learn how licensing works properly.

"But you don't have to use it, try this with the Linux kernel. Period! "

What are you talking about? Linux folks have no problem using BSD code. It's people like Theo who refuse to even use Apache2 and call it a non-free license.

"Yes the majority is GPL software, but from the beginning? "

What beginning are we talking about?

"And can of course build a usuable system without GPL software - to compile it I have to use GCC."

Hmm. So you need GCC to build a usable system which is under GPL. Your claim is self contradictory.

"This is no war against GPL software, I'am using it too - but don't spread such a nonsense because of your very own horizon."

Explain why Theo refuses to use GPL'ed or even Apache licensed code under OpenBSD if there is no war. Calling things nonsense just because you disagree is a poor way to make your point.